9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see-Appellants were registered in the name of M/s Varsed Detective and Security Pvt. Ltd. at Gurgaon and opened another office in Bhiwadi in the name of M/s Varsed Services, which is a component of the main company. M/s Varsed Services was doing the business activity in the name of the main company with the same registration number. So, there is no scope for escapism. From the record, it appears that M/s Varsed Services has not received any payment or order. Whatever orders or payments were received are accounted in the main company. Hence, the second company may be slightly different in nomenclature but can be considered as a branch unit, especially when no business was carried out in its name. The services provided to SEZ were exempted from payment of Service Tax under Section 93 of the Act by virtue of Notification No. 4/2004 dated 31.03.2004. The exemption was available to SEZ developers and the units in SEZ. In the instant case, the assessee-Appellants had not charged or collected any Service Tax from the SEZ, so the same was not paid. Cleaning services - Held that: - assessee-Appellants were also providing cleaning services to Ajmer Fort at Jaipur which is an archaeolog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax of ₹ 4,41,52,189/- along with penalty and interest. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,20,98,599/- by giving the relief of the balance amount. Being aggrieved, both the parties have filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Sudhir Malhotra, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants and Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR for the Department. 4. The learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants submits that they have received the compensation for the services provided through the bank from different corporates and such figure is invariably reflected in the bank statement and the balance sheet, and consequently the findings of the Commissioner that assessee-Appellants was rendering the services clandestinely is not sustainable. On the parallel invoices, he submits that in some of the invoices name of customers were mentioned but no enquiry was conducted with them to ascertain whether service was received by them or not. He submits that confirmation of demand on account of horticulture service is beyond the scope of show cause notice. It is also the submission of the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of a secret office which was not registered with the Department. On examination, it was found that the assessee-Appellants were maintaining parallel/duplicate invoices, as mentioned in the show cause notice. Presence of parallel/duplicate invoices itself shows that the assessee/Appellants have received the payment in cash and not accounted for. By its very nature of transaction, it is clear that the same is not reflected in the books of accounts. They had provided unaccounted services and issued parallel/duplicate invoices, payments for which could not have been shown in the books of account. It could be in cash or other undisclosed form. Further, the learned DR submits that the assessee-Appellants could not submit any evidence to prove provision of such services in the State of J K or in the SEZ, hence they are liable to pay Service Tax. The assessee-Appellants have collected the Service Tax from its clients but not deposited in the Government exchequer. 6. We have heard both sides and gone through the material available on record from which it appears that out of the demand of ₹ 4,41,52,189/-, mentioned in the show cause notice, the Commissioner has reduced the same to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Service Tax on the basis of so called parallel/duplicate invoices and the same is hereby set aside. 8. About the unregistered office, it appears that the assessee-Appellants were registered in the name of M/s Varsed Detective and Security Pvt. Ltd. at Gurgaon and opened another office in Bhiwadi in the name of M/s Varsed Services, which is a component of the main company. M/s Varsed Services was doing the business activity in the name of the main company with the same registration number. So, there is no scope for escapism. From the record, it appears that M/s Varsed Services has not received any payment or order. Whatever orders or payments were received are accounted in the main company. Hence, the second company may be slightly different in nomenclature but can be considered as a branch unit, especially when no business was carried out in its name. Further, it appears that the scope of the work included garbage cleaning, floor cleaning, drain cleaning, crystallization of floor which means floor polishing, windows and facade cleaning. The assessee-Appellants were also providing the security service including the metal detector and manpower. It s main client is M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the SEZ services, it appears that for SEZ units, namely, DLF Kolkata; DLF IT Park, Hyderabad and DLF Rai Project, the assessee-Appellants have raised the invoices but when tax was not received the same was not paid. There is nothing on record to show that the assessee-Appellants received the Service Tax raised in the invoices. It may be mentioned that no Service Tax was charged during the period 2008 to 2010. The demand of Service Tax of ₹ 5,74,624/- in this regard is bad in law and the same is hereby set aside. 13. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. A. No.ST/2678/2012 14. Regarding the Revenue s appeal, it may be mentioned that the issue of SEZ was raised. There is no dispute regarding the fact that services were rendered to units in SEZ. It may be mentioned that the charge in the Departmental appeal is that the services were provided to SEZ units but these were not approved by the Approval Committee of SEZ, but the same is beyond the scope of the show cause notice, since the same was not mentioned in the show cause notice. It may be mentioned that the Tribunal in the case of Manjit Singh (supra) has observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
